Information Fusion - Elsevier

SiteStat.jsp

INFORMATION FUSION

An International Journal on Multi-Sensor, Multi-Source Information Fusion Peer review policy for Information fusion The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Information Fusion and all manuscripts are reviewed following the procedure outlined below. Initial manuscript evaluation The Editor-in-chief first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed approximately within two to four weeks of receipt. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least three experts for review. Type of Peer Review Information Fusion employs at a minimum single blind review, in which referees remain anonymous for the author throughout the process. Provided the authors submit their manuscript in a format that permits maintaining author anonymity (not compulsory), depending on the extent of self-citations in the manuscript, author anonymity will also be attempted, whenever practical. However, authors should not omit relevant references (including references to related earlier conference presentations, if any) since the reviewers have to assess the contributions made in the manuscript relative to author's earlier publications and presentations. In such cases, author anonymity will not be honoured. How the referee is selected Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. Referee reports Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: Is original Is methodologically sound Follows appropriate ethical guidelines Has results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions Correctly cites earlier relevant work Language correction is not part of the peer review process but referees may, is they so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript. How long does the review process take? The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of referees. However, the typical time for Information Fusion is presently 12-16 weeks. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript. The journal strives to attain consensus decision for acceptance with multiple revisions if necessary. This may add to the length of the review process depending on the extent of revisions sought and promptness of authors in responding to the comments. A majority-based acceptance may be considered in exceptional cases if, in the opinion of the editor, it is justified. Final report A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees. Editor's Decision is final Referees advise the Editor-in-chief, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. Becoming a referee for Information Fusion The Editor in Chief invites qualified reviewers to contact him at belurd@gmail.com. Your email should include a brief CV highlighting your accomplishments in information fusion related areas as well as a short history outlining your experience in reviewing and editing for other peer-reviewed journals.

Information Fusion